Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Is Latest Dem to Forgo Public Financing

UPDATE, 5:45 p.m. ET: Obama, apparently, hasn't entirely given up on the option of accepting public cash for the general election. According to a document filed today with the Federal Election Commission, Obama is seeking a ruling on whether accepting general election contributions precludes his ability to return them and accept public funds in the general.

ORIGINAL POST FROM EARLIER: Just days before he is scheduled to formally declare his campaign for president, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has decided to forego public financing for the primary and general elections, according to sources close to his campaign.

Obama's decision means that none of the three top-tier Democrats will accept public financing if they become their party's nominee -- a first in presidential politics. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) have previously said they will bypass public financing and the spending limits that go with it. (Background here on Clinton and Edwards.)

All three candidates are now free to accept $4,600 from individual contributors -- $2,300 for the primary and an additional $2,300 for the general election. These higher limits are sure to produce both eye-popping fundraising totals in the first fundraising quarter of the year ... and confusion, as reporters and other observers work to sort out how much of the cash collected is for use in the primary and how much can be spent exclusively in the general.

None of the leading Republicans has said publicly whether he plans to bypass the public financing system in the general election, although the expectation is that they will now have to if they want to be competitive in the general election against the eventual Democratic nominee.

Although the public-financing system, which was introduced in the wake of Watergate, appeared on its last legs before this presidential campaign, it is now safe to declare it dead.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 7, 2007; 12:54 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain, Romney and the Endorsement Race
Next: Edwards's Blogger Problem

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate. What if we eliminated the Presidential matching funds program?

Posted by: anonymous | February 8, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Golgi, I wasn't commenting on the ethics of hiring bloggers in general. I was responding to William's claim that this "scandal" torpedoes Edward's candidacy. William was referring to the hiring of supposedly anti-Catholic bloggers, not of bloggers in general.

I know that you think hiring bloggers is unethical. But it's certainly not a career-ending scandal. And I don't know enough about these peoples' role in the campaign to comment. Were they posting on the official Edwards site? Or were they posting on their own sites, praising Edwards without disclosing that they were on staff?

Posted by: Blarg | February 8, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

anonoymous at 5:44 PM and Robert,

My problem with Obama is not that he is foregoing the campaign funds, my problem is that he has decried money in politics and is doing nothing about it. Don't give me that "he is turning down PAC contributions, but there is no influence peddlng for those who accept the legal limit," because the legal limit for contributions from PACs is $5000. If it is "corrputing" for someone to accept group contributions for $5000, why is it impossible for a contribrution of $4600 to be "corrupting." Besides, money from a PAC comes from a bunch of small donors, so the comparison is a bit of a stretch.

If Obama wants to be seen as a person of integrity in terms of money in politics, he should make a proposal for updating public financing of Presidential campaigns in such a way as to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING about money in politics, or better yet, work for a public financing law for all federal races, and he has yet to do so. You can't complain about something and then do nothing about it. That is hypocrisy.

As far as the argument that "Dean and Kucinich were different," well, I might grant your argument with Kucinich (although he did make five campaign stops in WV in less than 24 hours, so it's not like he had a lot of time between events) but Dean stayed for at least an hour after his speech and there were hundreds of people there. Obama's speech to the JJ Dinner ended at about 9:30, so I doubt that he had anything else on his schedule that night. As a matter of fact, when we asked where he went after the dinner, someone said that he booked a 10:00 flight to Chicago. In other words, he could have easily stayed for another hour and it wouldn't have interefered with him getting to a campaign event somewhere else. It's not the "perceived slight" that bothers me (I didn't complain when Albright left early in 2004.), it is the hypocrisy of making time at 4:30 for people who write $1000 checks despite not making a speech for another four hours, but none for anybody else despite complaining about the influence of money in politics.

Posted by: Steve | February 8, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Edwards have to be able to compete with Clinton's greed. She will saturate the media with herself and so they have to be able to counter this.
It is sick. I feel it's too much.
But, clinton should have been held to follow the campaign financing rules.
Funny how someone trying to convince that she is inevitable and spinning in the media that the gop is suppose to be afraid of her, she must pig it up at the trough to keep Obama off her heels and overtaking her.
Maybe she knows she cannot sustain and that Obama will overtake her.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

obama is the real deal. unfortunately, the reality of campaigning in the 21st century - absent public funding and other aspects of campaign finance reform that republicans and others will never accept because it "(waah)infringes on free speech" - means that he will have to be obscenely well-funded by private sources in order to be competitive. so faced with the choice of being publicly funded and not being able to compete with the 24/7 media available to those candidates who are and accepting private funds in order to wage a more competitive campaign, he chose the latter. what's hard to understand about that? the test will be whether he allows said funding to compromise his integrity / influence his positions on the issues. i am hopeful, but of course will be keeping an eye on him - as i certainly will on hillary, inc. and the corporate mouthpieces comprising the gop. i'm talking about you, mitt romney. put down that bible and back away slowly with your well-manicured hands in the air...

Posted by: meuphys | February 7, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Steve,

I think Senator Obama is in a different situation than the other candidates you cited. None of the other people you cited have so many people who want to shake their hand and take their calls. For someone like Senator Obama, there just aren't enough hours in the day to honor every request.

When you saw Senator Obama last September, he wasn't running for president. He was receiving countless requests every day from politicians throughout the country desparate to have him campaign for them, and to help them raise money. His schedule was stretched thin, trying to help every Democratic candidate he could. And for that, all Democrats owe him our heart felt thanks.

By refusing to accept PAC money, and lobbyist money, Senator Obama is setting an example of how not to be influenced by big money. No politician who plans to raise $100 million in individual donations is going to be even slightly swayed by an individual who donates the legal limit; these are not the donations that corrupt our leaders; it may seem unfair that not everyone gets face time with the most sought after Democrat in the country, but there are only so many hours in a day. During the last election season, he was flying in and out of many cities in any given day, trying to help as many Democrats as he could.

I've donated to Senator Obama's campaign many times, beginning very early in his Senate campaign, though never more than $100 at a time. After my first donation of a mere $20, his campaign sent me an expensive looking holiday card with his family's color photo. I'm sure he sent those to hundreds of thousands of people. But still, I was very impressed that his campaign valued the support of a small donor like myself. And from reading his latest book, and listening to his interviews, it's very clear to me that he takes a lot of time to talk with many small donors, and to read their email.

You can't judge a candidate on one isolated, perceived slight. Think about how busy he was back then, trying to help all of us.

Thank you for sharing your sincere thoughts. I hope this message finds you well.

Robert

Posted by: Robert* | February 7, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, I do like some liberal policies. But thanks.

Posted by: Golgi | February 7, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - are you a Lib, because I always thought you were fairly independent and reasonable. Are you considering joining the dark side?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Obama decide to not use public funding because he "sold-out." The reason is that with campaign cost for Presidential, and Congressional (in some areas) running in the tens of millions of dollars, how is a candidate supposed to keep up with an opponent with a virtually limitless supply of money.

The election laws don't really do any good in the long run. Limiting the amount per donor may help in the short-term but in the long run it simply means the candidate/politician spends more time fund raising--more people needed to reach the same amount, and less time working on the needs of his or her constituents or voting on legislation. A better move, would be to have a limit that limits not the amount individual donors can contribute, but how much a campaign can spend overall, but it will never happen until hell freezes over.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"All you Libs want to take away my ability to speak about politics. Let's cap everything, that way the NYT and NBC can decide who gets elected. Is that your point?"

Which Libs are you talking about?

I am asking so that in case you meant me, I can explain what I really meant, because I was not arguing for anything to be capped or silenced.

Posted by: Golgi | February 7, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Who would pay to get their picture with Kucinich? you see the market is very efficient and very wise.

All you Libs want to take away my ability to speak about politics. Let's cap everything, that way the NYT and NBC can decide who gets elected. Is that your point?

With the positions you hold on most issues, I am not surprised you don't want the message to get out and to allow deabte. If enough people see what you are up to, your chances of winning a Presidential election will go lower than a snail's belly.

What a joke the union of concerned scientists are - 1600 respond and 17,000 don't and they report it like it is settled fact. your grade for statistics this term - F minus.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 7, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, regarding Hillary Clinton, I say people decide for themselves. Personally, Hillary Clinton comes across as insincere and tracking which way the political wind blows. If those who would call me and everyone else who would call those misogynistic (in a similar manner to calling those who oppose a n a complete open border policy racist and xenophobic) let them. It shows a failure to back up why the alleged proponents of Hillary--I haven't seen very many--feel she's such a strong candidate. If one feels passionate about a candidate or a policy, a suprising number of people can be persuaded to at least give the person or policy a chance if you argue in a rational manner as opposed to a negative manner.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Robert, I don't blame Obama for foregoing public financing, I blame him for saying that money corrupts people in politics and then only schmoozing with those who contribute at the legal limit, all without offering a proposal to actually do something about the corrupting power of money in politics. By killing an admittedly flawed system of partially publicly-funded elections, without trying to correct it, that is what makes Obama a hypocrite.

Again, why did he have time for the $1000 donors to the WV Democratic Party but none to candidates or small-dollar donors? I have been to five JJ Dinners, and he was one of only two (the other being Madeline Albright in 2004, who did spend some time posing for pictures) keynote speakers who didn't take the time to talk to every donor who so desired.

When Howard Dean spoke to Democrats in WV in January of 2006, the difference couldn't have been more striking: he did have a private reception for JFK Society members, but he also called every single candidate (not just the marquee races) and officeholder up on stage, then he talked to, posed for pics with and signed autographs for every single person who asked, and all you had to pay to get in the room was a suggested minimum donation of $5. To top it off, when Kucinich came to WV in 2004 to campaign, he talked to everyone at every stop whether they were donors or not. (Obama's $75 was a steep increase over the $50 that attendees paid for the 2005 JJ Dinner w/Warner as keynote and teh $25 in previous years.)

Compared to his rhetoric, Obama is empowering big money donors, not "ending the corrupting influence of money." If he wants to end it, he should propose a way to end it. For that reason, if Gore doesn't run, I will vote for Kucinich in the primary. He is someone of true integrity, and my primary isn't going to be until April of May anyway, so I can vote on principle, and Obama is showing that on this issue, that he felt so important that he mentioned it in his announcement, that he doesn't have any.

Posted by: Steve | February 7, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Well, Blarg, some would say there is something dishonest about hiring staffers to blog without disclosing their paid status... whether or not they blog against bigotry.

It will be interesting to see what aspects of this scandal receive the most attention.

I am betting that it isn't the Catholics who will turn against Edwards (because the wording of the comments was obnoxious). It will be the net roots who turn against Edwards (because the whole concept of paid undisclosed bloggers, whose bosses review their posts, is just unattractive).

Posted by: Golgi | February 7, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

If the worst thing John Edwards ever does is hire staffers who are against anti-homosexual and anti-abortion bigotry, then he'd be the most scandal-free politician ever.

Posted by: Blarg | February 7, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I can hardly blame candidates for eschewing public financing when the system hasn't kept up with the numerical reality. And as public support for increasing their contributions to the system clearly isn't there (the check-off box hasn't covered it for a long time), we seem to be in widespread agreement that the financing system is a relic of an earlier age.

Posted by: Iva Norma Stitts | February 7, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Did you hear about Edwards' blogging scandal? It's on right now on CNN.

Scary stuff.

Congratulations, Edwards. You've just lost the Catholic vote, and thus, the Democratic nomination.

OK, so Edwards is done. Who's next? My $$$ is on Obama.

Posted by: William | February 7, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Think of all the programs that could be funded, the homeless we could house, the people that could go to college for free, the people that we could get healthcare for, and all the people we could feed if there was a stinkin' cap on........... THIS WAR

Posted by: Pdoggie | February 7, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

DRINDL: If hating Hillary makes you a misyonist(okay its mispelled)then we have a lot of women haters in this country. We hate her because she is an unprincpled opportunist and who craves power so bad it ought to scare the hell out of everybody. She is just not a nice person(See Newt) and politics even more ugly than it already is. Please do your part as a dem and support somebody other than your junior Senator. You have plenty of good candidates to choose from

Posted by: bhoomes | February 7, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry that my last post repeats my earlier post. I thought my earlier post hadn't gone through.

Posted by: Robert* | February 7, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of style over substance, could someone remind me what John Edwards accomplished in the Senate? All I remember is that he sponsored the bill to authorize war in Iraq. Even 1 1/2 years into the war, Edwards said he would have made the same vote now, knowing what he did today. All John Edwards ever does is talk. What has he actually done in his life that makes him more qualified to be president than any of the 250 million other people in this country?

Posted by: Robert* | February 7, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Think of all the programs that could be funded, the homeless we could house, the people that could go to college for free, the people that we could get healthcare for, and all the people we could feed if there was a stinkin' cap on fundraising and spending.

Heck, we might even be able to watch TV in October/November without the headaches of twisted ads. It's a rotten shame that people, especially Hollywood, shell out money for campaigns like it grows on trees.

Posted by: Columbia, MD | February 7, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To clarify my last post, Edwards is calling for a staggered withdrawal, to happen rapidly and in large numbers. When Tim Russert confronted Edwards with an independent study that said a plan like his would lead to disaster, Edwards responded with the completely naive ideas on foreign policy I discussed above.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

BTW, if you'd like to know more of the real story about Rudy, there's a new book out called Grand Illusion, by Wayne Barrett, the best good old-fashioned investigaitive reporter I have ever met, that gives you a very detailed and meticulously sourced account of what really happened on 9/11 [Wayne was downtown that day]..

He also wrote a bio of Rudy, called Rudy! Whether the pwned MSM will actually release any of the film footage of the various scandals he was involved with is questionable, but maybe John McCain's minions will ferret it out.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635,barrett,74322,6.html

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of style over substance, can anyone remind me what John Edwards accomplished in the Senate? The only thing I can remember is that he led the charge to authorize war in Iraq. Even 1 1/2 years into the war, Edwards went on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and said he would make the same vote all over again - even though it was clear by then that there were no WMDs in Iraq. And what is Edwards' plan to get us out of Iraq? He says he would pull out now. He says he would have the Iranians step in the fill the void, even though he doesn't trust them. He says the different religious factions in Iraq will have no choice but to resolve all their differences peacefully and respectfully if the U.S. makes clear it is about to pull out. Go to iTunes and watch Edwards on last week's Meet the Press. This is what he said! Obviously, Edwards doesn't have a clue. The Shiites have been waiting a long time to get their revenge on the Sunnis, and peace is the last thing that will happen under Edwards' plan. And Edwards has the nerve to imply that Obama and Clinton are cowards and children for not following his foolish proposal in Iraq. Go watch last week's Meet the Press. This is the type of thing Edwards is saying. He's no smarter than George W Bush.

Posted by: Robert* | February 7, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

'Not sure Gore is electable with him being so far out on the limb on the global warming issue,'

Check the Energy Department's website... the day that major report on global warming came out last, they put up a post that claimed that George Bush was 'leading the way' in finding solutions to human-caused global warming, okay?

It's over now. No more denial, except for those winger dregs who deny the existence of science. Global business knows it's real and it's starting to cost them money, especially the insurance and re-insurance business. Big money.

Now the propaganda campaigns will be devoted to how it's actually good for us...

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to include my screen name in the last post.

Posted by: Robert* | February 7, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama has decided not to take PAC money. There's nothing hypocritical about accepting individual donations up to the legal limit, and still wanting to reduce the influence of special influence groups. No individual who simply donates $4,000 is going to have any special influence over an official after they're elected. Individuals expect some face time for donating thousands of dollars. That's not ideal, but how does it do any harm. There isn't a candidate in either party who can avoid that fact. To say that makes someone a hypocrite is expecting the impossible from any candidate who isn't a self funded billionaire. Let's stop comparing Senator Obama to God, and saying he comes up short, and start comparing him to real human beings who are running against him.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Charles Coulter
"...it is disturbing how rock solid candidates like Bill Richardson are passed over without a thought. But I guess this is part of the game. No one said acquiring name recognition was easy." Take heart. The last 2 democratic presidents had zero name recognition at this point also. Of course, that gave us Clinton and Carter...

Posted by: Dave! | February 7, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Not sure Gore is electable with him being so far out on the limb on the global warming issue"

If by "out on the limb" you mean "perfectly accurate" then I can see your point in an era in which truth must be drowned in a bathtub.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | February 7, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Barack and Hillary represent the same unattractive trend toward celebrity politicians. This is not to say either candidate lacks merit, but it is disturbing how rock solid candidates like Bill Richardson are passed over without a thought. But I guess this is part of the game. No one said acquiring name recognition was easy. It is up to Richardson, Vilsack (who is hardly Richardson), Edwards and whoever to begin to define themselves away from these media darlings.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | February 7, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Heres a question how would you even begin to regulate which money was spent during the general and primary seasons. Who is keeping track of when person X crosses the 2300 magic line

Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Steve:

Funny that you should mention it. I see Obama as being the logical conclusion of the style over substance setup that has given us the Clintons and now GWB. Mouth platitudes about hope and suggest some issues while giving yourself wiggle room to get out if they prove unpopular, (ref. 'there will be universal health insurance before the end of the next President's first term') while belaying any substantive policy discussion by talking vaguely about 'a new kind of politics.'

Barack Obama is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic party. At least the candidate who was derided last time for being just a face (Edwards) has started with substance-- albeit a debateable full insurance plan-- and a way to pay for it.

Not sure Gore is electable with him being so far out on the limb on the global warming issue, but at least he has scruples, as you point out. And my goodness the news would be dominated for 18 months by the donnybrook as HRC, Obama, Edwards and Gore slugged it out.

Posted by: Steve in ND | February 7, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Remember when Obama complained about the influence on money in politics just last month? Well, what is he doing to change the culture? It seems to me like he is reinforcing it, not changing it.

I remember when he came to WV last September for the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner and hightailed it out of the room after his keynote address. However, for those who were willing and able to pony up the $1000 to the WV Democratic Party to join the JFK Society, Obama was willing to meet with them in private. In other words, if you paid $1000, you got face time with the junior Senator from Illinois. However, if you paid $75 for a ticket to the dinner or volunteered to set up for the dinner, you got nothing. (In 2005, Mark Warner stayed behind to talk after the dinner who wanted to, and John Edwards and Barbara Mikulski did the same thing in 2002.) This is why I was so rankled by Obama's mention of "the corrupting power of money," because of its utter hypocrisy.

Al Gore, where are you when we need you?

Posted by: Steve | February 7, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Barry Obama has some ground to make up in the money primary; good thing he decided to forgo public financing...now the gloves are coming off.
Last night, Senator Clinton invited about 70 top fundraisers from around the country to a reception at her Washington home. The guest list included such major Democratic donors as Haim Saban, a Hollywood studio investor, Alan J. Patricof, a New York financier, and Kevin O'Keefe, a Chicago lawyer.

The high-dollar rainmakers committed to collect at least $250,000 each during the presidential campaign for Clinton, and many have pledged $1 million, participants said. In addition, each agreed to raise $50,000 by the end of this month to bolster the campaign's first-quarter report due at the end of March.

Today, the Clinton campaign plans to host a couple of hundred people at briefings by the senator and her staff at the District's Hyatt Regency hotel. The attendees -- called Hillraisers -- are expected to collect at least $25,000 each for the Clinton drive this year.

Clinton insiders said the senator hopes to demonstrate her preeminence in the growing field of Democratic contenders by raising $10 million or more in the first quarter and at least $60 million this year.
WashPost

Hillary will probably raise more money than any presidential candidate in history. bhoones, Obama may be a populist favorite, but how can he overcome this?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 7, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

'What happened to billions in taxpayer funds that were overseen by the Coalition Provisional Authority? That's not "important," according to David Oliver, the former Director of Management and Budget of the agency.

A recording of the unfortunately candid remarks, previously made by Oliver to the BBC, were played during this morning's oversight hearing by Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA). The hearing has focused on the CPA's administration of nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds in 2003 and 2004 -- money that Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, has said was inadequately accounted for.

"I have no idea, I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important," Oliver says on the tape . "Billions of dollars disappeared, yes I understand, I'm saying what difference does it make?"

Posted by: Astonishing... | February 7, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

'That makes five US choppers downed since January 20. Since we don't have nearly enough troops to secure the ground lanes even the brass travels by chopper, leaving us vulnerable to catastrophic losses.

The Soviets began losing Afghanistan when bin Laden's group started downing their helicopters. Without access to safe air transport or air support the Soviet occupiers lost an edge that an army fighting a guerilla enemy on foreign ground couldn't afford to lose. Political realities changed slowly in the USSR, guaranteeing that the Soviet army didn't pull out until long after any reasonable observer would understand that there was no more good in staying. By pullout time the red army lacked the resources to even retreat safely. Some units were slaughtered in the process.

Bin Laden attacked America on 9/11 because he expected to beat us in Afghanistan like he did the Soviets. American occupation would inflame muslim sentiment, drive American interests out of the mideast and spark a global jihad that would keep us distracted and on the defensive while he pursued regime change in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Iraq.

By relying on a combination of local forces and high-precision air warfare we proved bin Laden completely, catastrophically wrong. Baiting America into Afghanistan might have gone down as one of the dumbest strategic moves in history, if we had finished the job, round up bin Laden and drove the Taliban into permanent exile. Deams of muslim outrage withered as the Afghans seemed more than happy to rebuild under our guidance.

Then a funny thing happened. Instead of wrapping up the Afghan war we gave bin Laden a second chance. More than that, we delivered so thoroughly that al Qaeda might as well have faxed us an itemized list. Check off the bloody, intractable occupation and a popular insurgency. Infidels violently occupying holy land, detainee abuse (that must have made al Qaeda especially happy), random death and violence that we as the dominant power don't necessarily cause but take the blame anyway. Widespread muslim outrage? Yup. We even did the favor of knocking over one of the secular tyrants on bin Laden's list.'

Posted by: Louis X | February 7, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I think Rudy is deranged. This is when he was on the radio during his time as Mayor:

'When Tony from the Bronx called to question the Mayor's handling of the Amadou Diallo shooting, Mr. Giuliani told him, ''Either you don't read the newspapers carefully enough or you're so prejudiced and biased that you block out the truth.'' When Bill in Manhattan asked why it was illegal to hang a flag from city property, Mr. Giuliani shot back, ''Isn't there something more important that you want to ask me?''

And when David in Oceanside called last month to complain about the ban on pet ferrets, the Mayor of New York City leaned into the microphone on his desk and intoned, ''There is something deranged about you.''

A three-minute diatribe against the ferret advocate ensued, with Mr. Giuliani saying things like, ''You should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist with this excessive concern -- how you are devoting your life to weasels.''

Perhaps someone might say the same about him....

Posted by: suzanne | February 7, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Golgi -- here's some winger bloggers who mccain is courting.. malkin is a vicious racist who has said truly disgusting things about Obama. Not a peep out of the compliant MSM..and then there's the poster Riehl World, who calls all women 'feminazis' and 'neocastratis' ... apparently, that's fine too.

You'll notice, by the way, that even tho McCain is groveling at the feet of these racists and misgynists, they think they're too good for him, you see. He's not rabid enough... so forghet it if you think anybody rational is getting the R nomination....

'Michelle Malkin links to Mary Kay Ham feeding back on a John McCain campaign conference call. MK uses the concept of a lover's quarrel to discuss McCain's relationship with bloggers. For the record, my battered spouse line isn't directed at MK personally.

Call me the tough love type. McCain is courting the blogosphere because he wants something. I don't care that he wasn't doing it before, what I care about are positions that he has taken over the last six years - and more. Frankly I can't even remember everything for which I see him as unacceptable for POTUS.'

Posted by: drindl | February 7, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company